norml17 - Page 15

factorso TM Thus, while the six factors continue to be cited as "none×elusive"
and "relevant," they are in fact a necessary minimum Jf a party hopes to
prevail, or even have the issue considered.
The six factors and the relevance to the rnedica_t marijuana issue are as
follows:
1. The textual language of the_tate consfi_fion:
"The text of the state constitution may provide cogent grotmds for a
decision different from that which would be arrived at under the federal
constitution° It may be more explicit or it may have no precise federal
counterpart at all."s5
There is no fedora1 counterpart to the "frequent recurrence to
fundamental principles" of article I, § 32 of the Washington constitution
(hereinafter, Section 32). If there were such a clause, it would be impossible
for the federal bureaucracy to remain as unrestrained as it has now become,
since a system of checks and balances and prevention of concentration of
power are fundamental to prevention of tyranny and preservation of personal
liberty. To prevail on the basis of simple, humanitarian decency, the words of
the state constitution offer hope where t.he federal constitution offers none.
2. Ngnificant _fferences in t_h_ texts of paralleJ. Novisions of the
federal and state constitutions,
"Such differences may also warrant reliance on the state constitution.
Even where parallel provisions of the two constitutions do not have
meaningful differences, other relevant provisions of the state constitution may
require that the state constitutions may require that the state constitution be
interpreted differenflyo TM
It is tempting to find several attacks which might be launched under
this rubric. Some examples:
A. Rights ef privacy
54 Among others, see _ 119 Wn.2d 466, 472, 755 P.2d 797 (1988); In re 2_lota. 114
Wn.2d 465, 472, 788 P.2d 538 (1990)o
55 I_ at 6I.
56 I_.
15